PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO DIOSO AND JACINTO ABARCA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Dioso

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Teofilo Dioso and Jacinto Abarca for the killing of two fellow inmates inside the New Bilibid Prison. The trial court convicted them of murder and imposed the death penalty, and the case reached the Supreme Court on mandatory review. It matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, which is treachery, meaning the deliberate adoption of means that leave the victim no chance to defend himself. Second, and more important for the Bar, it is the leading illustration of quasi-recidivism, the situation of a person who commits a new felony while already serving sentence for a prior conviction, where the law fixes the maximum penalty regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Procedural History

The two accused were charged with murder before the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal. When arraigned, both voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Because of the gravity of the offense, the trial court required the presentation of evidence to determine the degree of their culpability. At that hearing, both acknowledged the voluntary execution of their respective confessions. The trial court found them guilty of murder, appreciated the qualifying circumstance of alevosia, and imposed the death penalty. The case then came to the Supreme Court by mandatory review, because the penalty imposed was death.

Facts

At the time of the incident, Dioso and Abarca were serving sentence in the New Bilibid Prison, Abarca for a final conviction of homicide and Dioso for robbery. Both belonged to a prison gang called Batang Mindanao. The victims, Angelito Reyno and Fernando Gomez, belonged to a rival group called Happy Go Lucky. The two factions had figured in intermittent and sometimes bloody clashes, the latest of which resulted in the death of one Balerio, a member of Batang Mindanao. Suspecting that Reyno and Gomez had killed their gangmate, the two accused resolved to avenge his death.

They found their occasion when they learned that Reyno and Gomez were sick and confined in the prison hospital. At six fifteen in the morning of September 12, 1972, Abarca, feigning illness, went to the hospital to seek admission as a patient, accompanied by Dioso. Inside Ward 6 they saw their intended victims. Reyno was taking breakfast, while Gomez was lying down on a wooden bed under a mosquito net. Dioso approached Reyno and spoke briefly to him, while Abarca headed toward the wooden bed. Then both suddenly drew their improvised knives. Abarca raised the mosquito net and stabbed Gomez, as Dioso almost simultaneously attacked Reyno. After Reyno had fallen, Dioso strode to the wooden bed to help Abarca finish off Gomez. When the two rushed out of the ward, they were met in the corridor by Prison Guard Enriquito Aguilar, and both gave themselves up and handed over their weapons.

The autopsy showed that both victims died of massive bleeding from multiple stab wounds on the chest and abdomen. The accused were immediately interrogated by the prison investigator and readily executed sworn statements admitting responsibility. In his statement, Dioso narrated how he delivered the death blow on Reyno, and both accused explained the motive: the killing was the gang's revenge for the death of Balerio.

Issues

• Whether or not the crime committed is murder qualified by alevosia, or treachery.
• Whether or not the accused are quasi-recidivists, having committed the crime while serving sentence for a prior offense.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty may reduce the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, on quasi-recidivism, provides:

Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

This is the provision that fixes the penalty in this case, because both accused committed murder while serving sentence for prior final convictions.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the crime was perpetrated with alevosia. As revealed by the accused themselves, they inflicted the fatal blows while Gomez was lying down under a mosquito net and Reyno was taking his breakfast. Clearly, neither victim was in a position to defend himself from the sudden and unexpected assault. The Court also noted that in their briefs, the accused made no attempt to impugn the lower court's conclusion as to their guilt.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused are quasi-recidivists, having committed the crime charged while serving sentence for a prior offense. As such, the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the new felony, which is murder, is death, regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, or the complete absence thereof.

On the third issue, the Court found no necessity to discuss at length the effects of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. Because quasi-recidivism fixes the maximum penalty regardless of mitigating circumstances, those circumstances could not attenuate the death sentence. However, for lack of the requisite votes, the Court was constrained to commute the death sentence imposed on each accused to reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, alevosia, or treachery, qualifies a killing as murder when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might make. The sudden attack on a victim who is lying down or taking breakfast, with no chance to defend himself, is treachery.

Second, under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same, is a quasi-recidivist and shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. The maximum penalty applies regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. This is the rule a Bar candidate must be able to state: quasi-recidivism fixes the maximum penalty and renders mitigating circumstances inoperative.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence imposed on each accused to reclusion perpetua, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the sum of 30,000 pesos, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a quasi-recidivist is punished by the maximum period of the penalty for the new felony, regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Examiners use this case to test whether you know that voluntary surrender and a plea of guilty cannot lower the penalty once quasi-recidivism attaches, and to illustrate treachery where the victims are attacked while utterly defenseless.